Equity in BYOD
One the biggest arguments against of the BYOD movement is providing an equitable education to a diverse population of students which each have different devices or no devices at all (Devaney, 2012). Opponents such as Stager (2011) call BYOD the “Worst idea of the 21st century,” and state inequity between affluent students and their classmates as the primary reason (Stager, 2011). Johnson (2012) answers Stager’s concerns by explaining how classrooms can have significantly better student to computer ratios by allowing student owned devices into the classroom (p. 85). In the initial rebuttal to the claim of inequity among devices, the resounding claim is that having diversity in devices is better than not having enough devices. In an effort to meet the National Educational Technology Plan (2010) by ensuring every student has an internet connect device for use “in and out of school,” educators must use untraditional methods to supply technology (p. xiii). In Project Tomorrow (2012), the mobile device is claimed as “the great equalizer of access,” which is a stark contrast to being a cause for inequality (Project Tomorrow, 2012, p. 6). Proponents of BYOD offer many solutions to the possible disparity between devices as well as evidence that the diversity between student-owned devices may not be great.
Although equity in devices will not be achieved when students bring their own devices, there is power in diversity and the result can be collaboration. In fact, Forsyth County educators report increased collaboration in the BYOD classroom because of differentiating devices which has been labeled the “BYOD huddle” (Devaney, 2012, p. 3). Students are encouraged to work together, using appropriate devices for each assignment. This fosters collaboration which is at the heart of many technology initiates (Office of Educational Technology, 2010).
The number of students with access to internet devices has been steadily growing, even among low-income populations. In schools designated as low-income, 61% of parents said they would purchase a mobile device if their child could use it for instructional purposes while 62% of all parents would do the same (Project Tomorrow, 2012). This is a small diversity. Currently, 50% of 9th to 12th graders report that they already own a smartphone, while 21% have a tablet (Project Tomorrow, 2012). The main obstacle for these students seems to be that they cannot use these devices at school. These statistics show that if devices are allowed, parents would help fund the majority, leaving districts to supply less than 40%. According to The NMC Horizons Report (2012), educational institutions around the world are supplying devices to students who do not have them (Johnson, Adams, S. , & Cummins, M., p. 12). With the decreased number of devices funded by the schools, providing students with a one-to-one student to computer ratio could be a financial possibility for most school districts.
When parents do not provide their children with devices, the answer is for schools to use available resources to purchase for those students. Costa (2013) presents BYOD as a solution for schools that struggle to provide computer to their students. He claims that 60 to 80% of students can afford to provide their own computers, and that the school system should provide for the remaining percentage. He claims that this can be done by switching from licensed software to free software, stating that the free software can do 90% of what the licensed software is doing (Costa, 2013). In addition to this financial savings, schools can save money by changing from printed texts to digital texts. By combining both of these savings, schools would be able to fund computers for those students who cannot provide their own. The savings from purchasing fewer devices will help narrow inequity among student-owned devices. This makes BYOD the best way to leap into full digital learning.
One the biggest arguments against of the BYOD movement is providing an equitable education to a diverse population of students which each have different devices or no devices at all (Devaney, 2012). Opponents such as Stager (2011) call BYOD the “Worst idea of the 21st century,” and state inequity between affluent students and their classmates as the primary reason (Stager, 2011). Johnson (2012) answers Stager’s concerns by explaining how classrooms can have significantly better student to computer ratios by allowing student owned devices into the classroom (p. 85). In the initial rebuttal to the claim of inequity among devices, the resounding claim is that having diversity in devices is better than not having enough devices. In an effort to meet the National Educational Technology Plan (2010) by ensuring every student has an internet connect device for use “in and out of school,” educators must use untraditional methods to supply technology (p. xiii). In Project Tomorrow (2012), the mobile device is claimed as “the great equalizer of access,” which is a stark contrast to being a cause for inequality (Project Tomorrow, 2012, p. 6). Proponents of BYOD offer many solutions to the possible disparity between devices as well as evidence that the diversity between student-owned devices may not be great.
Although equity in devices will not be achieved when students bring their own devices, there is power in diversity and the result can be collaboration. In fact, Forsyth County educators report increased collaboration in the BYOD classroom because of differentiating devices which has been labeled the “BYOD huddle” (Devaney, 2012, p. 3). Students are encouraged to work together, using appropriate devices for each assignment. This fosters collaboration which is at the heart of many technology initiates (Office of Educational Technology, 2010).
The number of students with access to internet devices has been steadily growing, even among low-income populations. In schools designated as low-income, 61% of parents said they would purchase a mobile device if their child could use it for instructional purposes while 62% of all parents would do the same (Project Tomorrow, 2012). This is a small diversity. Currently, 50% of 9th to 12th graders report that they already own a smartphone, while 21% have a tablet (Project Tomorrow, 2012). The main obstacle for these students seems to be that they cannot use these devices at school. These statistics show that if devices are allowed, parents would help fund the majority, leaving districts to supply less than 40%. According to The NMC Horizons Report (2012), educational institutions around the world are supplying devices to students who do not have them (Johnson, Adams, S. , & Cummins, M., p. 12). With the decreased number of devices fun
When parents do not provide their children with devices, the answer is for schools to use available resources to purchase for those students. Costa (2013) presents BYOD as a solution for schools that struggle to provide computer to their students. He claims that 60 to 80% of students can afford to provide their own computers, and that the school system should provide for the remaining percentage. He claims that this can be done by switching from licensed software to free software, stating that the free software can do 90% of what the licensed software is doing (Costa, 2013). In addition to this financial savings, schools can save money by changing from printed texts to digital texts. By combining both of these savings, schools would be able to fund computers for those students who cannot provide their own. The savings from purchasing fewer devices will help narrow inequity among student-owned devices. This makes BYOD the best way to leap into full digital learning.